Computer Audio Asylum

Thanks for the good wishes.

108.3.18.39

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: Baloney posted by Tony Lauck on January 09, 2011 at 11:38:49

Howdy
Thanks for the good wishes.
Here's, perhaps, a more complete explanation of my position.
I didn't say that my DAC was transport independent: I said that my DAC wasn't sensitive to the transports I had used it on up to that point in time.
I always knew that it would be sensitive to transports, power cords, RFI, etc. because it exists in the real world. My goal was to see how much I could ameliorate these effects with the obvious (to me) implementations.
I didn't build my DAC for anyone else's system or goals. It was for my own edification and my own use. I found that it works better than I expected in some instances and a little worse in others. More importantly I learned that some of my shortcuts/engineering decisions failed miserably (hence the three separate incarnations of my boards.)
More incidentally I now have physical proof to back up some of my statements which were scoffed at in the past: some examples:
.) Some said that (in addition to the analog filer) you need digital filtering and/or other processing to convert a raw DSD bit stream to analog in spite of me posting the spectra of various digital simulations of simple analog filtering of a DSD bit stream. It was obvious to me that they were missing something. A simple analog filter works quite well.
.) Some said (and still say) that a proper FIFO is sufficient to get rid of jitter. Once again that's obviously false to me but obviously true to the bits-is-bits people. I defy anyone to find a fault in my FIFO implementations or to build a FIFO that works gets rid of all audible effects of jitter.
.) Some claimed that FPGA based filtering of audio was too crippled to work acceptably. It seems obvious that conversely a FPGA is much better than a general CPU or DSP chip IF programming time isn't counted and the engineers involved know what they are doing. I've programmed DSP chips, general purpose CPUs and now FPGAs to do correct DSP processing.
.) Many people say that a flat frequency response doesn't sound the best or conversely that room correction or speaker correction is a great idea. I've repeatedly had the experience that using room correction systems or speaker correction systems to flatten the frequency response of a system takes the life out of the music, but I always belived that a system which is inherently flat and didn't need such corrections should have good PRaT. Unfortunately one of my mistakes subverted a direct and compelling test of this, but still my DAC with a flat response is very involving and has plenty of life.
.) Some claim that any properly implemented power supply would be immune to changes of power cords. To me this should be obviously false to anyone who understands power supplies for audio components well. I did hope that I would render power cord changes on my DAC inaudible, but since designers I respect have failed at that same goal I wasn't too surprised that I did too.
I read your "It's the fault of the DAC designers. They haven't done their job." post as another post espousing a simplistic view of real world engineering and I stand by my intended response that all real engineering involves compromises.
-Ted
P.S. Oh, also, I have plenty of familiarity with DACs which send the clock back to the transport. I have a Meitner stack and I've worked for multiple companies who also provided for the use of a simple clock domain in their products. I was surprised that I have less audible effects in my DAC from jitter than I hear in any of those systems or other "jitter proof" systems.

Edits: 01/09/11

Follow Ups: